That has not been my experience .. almost all antis know about the 2nd amendment at least .. so they know, they know.
some of so called 2A supporters are just as bad, and sometimes use the same fallacies as antis, IMO.
P4P advocates NEED the antis to push their agenda.
You misunderstand DM. Knowing isn't the same as agreeing. Even on this list we have those who do not agree that the 2nd amendment protects a right to carry a gun discretely. In their view, I have an inalienable, constitutionally enumerated right to carry a gun, (comma, BUT) BUT only if it is visible. The moment a few mm of fabric cover the gun I am no longer exercising a fundamental right. I strongly disagree with this view of the 2nd amendment. But if that is our only disagreement, I'll happily work with them to advance RKBA in every instance where we do agree.
And as WalkingWolf alludes to, attitudes are not binary. It is a continuum from those who oppose all restrictions on private ownership and carrying of guns to those who oppose all private gun ownership and usage. In between those two points are those who reject most restrictions, but are ok with lifetime bans on convicted felons or "wife beaters", those who oppose stand your ground or castle doctrine laws but are ok with hunting or target shooting, those who generally support RKBA but are ok with permits in order to carry (concealed or otherwise) in public.
RKBA is not a religion and our goal isn't to eliminate all heresy so as to save souls. Our goal is to advance legislative, statutory, judicial, and social recognition of and respect for our RKBA. We do this most effectively, I believe, not by running off any who might express any degree of disagreement, but by persuading as many as possible to support us in our current effort while simultaneously persuading as many others as possible not to oppose us actively.
If we can persuade professional trainers that constitutional carry will increase, rather decrease demand for their services, then the permit for profit crowd can be an ally rather than an opponent. Or, we might make efforts to reduce the profitability of permits. Such a technique was an important step in eliminating slavery in England (peacefully as contrasted with the War Between the States in our nation).
If we can persuade some segment of gun grabbers that we already have the laws they think we need, we can eliminate their motivation to attack us. Every minute and dollar we don't have to spend defending against another "close the gun show loophole" bill can instead be directed toward eliminating another bad gun law.
There are many who might be motivated to push for new gun control laws if they think anyone can buy a machine gun at a gun show and then legally walk around grade schools with it. And whatever we may think the laws should be at some point in the future, we can eliminate a lot of opposition to our current efforts if we can inform people that there is no "gun show loophole", that machine guns and bazookas and nukes are quite heavily controlled under current law, and gun free school zones already impose federal felonies for violations....and so they should go back to their beer or wine and football or soccer watching.
All gun laws ARE gun control
As I've noted before, this simply isn't true. In Utah we have "gun laws" that prevent most government agencies from having any anti-gun employment policies. We have laws that prevent wildlife resources from enforcing any rules against carrying a gun on a hunt, even if the gun can't legally be used to take game (eg the bow hunt). We have laws dictating how guns held as evidence are disposed of once the case is finalized and the evidence is no longer needed.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect RKBA. It is to provide MORE protection for the ownership, possession, and use of guns than is required to be given to other items. It is entirely proper to have some good laws to reflect and enforce this. For example, in Utah, a state college can properly restrict food and drink from certain venues so as to protect property from damage. But those colleges cannot restrict firearms. It is a "gun law" that imposes this limit on the government run college.
Charles